• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released

Apocalypse said:
He was convicted, he was never acquitted, he is, therefore, guilty.
Click to expand...

Brilliant, so you put blind faith in the Scottish justice system.

I guess it is easier than thinking for yourself.
 
Slainte said:
Brilliant, so you put blind faith in the Scottish justice system.

I guess it is easier than thinking for yourself.
Click to expand...
It comes bundled together.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released - CNN.com



Ok, I lean on the liberal side, but this is killing me. This guy killed 270 people as a terrorist and they are "showing him mercy," because he has a terminal illness!!!!!? That's karma bitch! He should have rotted and died in prison. Thoughts?
Click to expand...


I think they are trying to make the word "compassionate" synonymous with the word "moron" or "idiot". The fact this man only has months to live is irrelevant regardless if he only had one victim or 270 victims. I think the title of the thread title should be "Scotland loses its mind",Scotland doesn't believe in justice anymore" or "Scotland pisses on the victims of terrorism".
 
Last edited:
Slainte said:
Brilliant, so you put blind faith in the Scottish justice system.

I guess it is easier than thinking for yourself.
Click to expand...

I do not know about Scotland but in the US we have this belief innocent until proven guilty.The man was proven guilty in a court of law therefore he is no longer innocent.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not know about Scotland but in the US we have this belief innocent until proven guilty.The man was proven guilty in a court of law therefore he is no longer innocent.
Click to expand...
I don't even see a room for debate here.
The person was convicted, and was never acquitted - he is guilty.
And now he's released to roam the streets because we all know that terrorists have rights too, and they should die with their family and not in some dark cell in prison.
 
CIA should task a couple of hard hitters to put two, or three rounds in his grape.
 
Apocalypse said:
I don't even see a room for debate here.
Click to expand...

That is because you (and most others who have bothered to post in this thread) have refused to even look at the case, let alone bother to try and understand the complexities of it.
 
Slainte said:
That is because you (and most others who have bothered to post in this thread) have refused to even look at the case, let alone bother to try and understand the complexities of it.
Click to expand...

Complexities? He killed 270 people. He was sentenced to life in prison. He should die in prison. Nothing complex about that.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not know about Scotland but in the US we have this belief innocent until proven guilty.The man was proven guilty in a court of law therefore he is no longer innocent.
Click to expand...

Do you know what evidence there was against Megrahi?

Do you know the circumstances surrounding his extradition and trial?

Do you understand the political pressure there was to get some type of conviction?

Are you even interested?

Or would you rather just transform a complicated issue into a simplistic and ugly round of populist hand wringing?
 
PeteEU said:
So you are blaming all "the European's" over the actions of a local government in Scotland? Talk about shooting an ant with a nuclear bomb...
Click to expand...

Wait, the same guy that paints all people right of center in the US as idiots, and takes all extreme examples of idiots as being the same as any other right wing/conservative person...

Is whining to ensure that "We're not all like that" about this case? CLASSIC!

HOWEVER, the Scot's should be ashamed of their government right now.
 
Slainte said:
Do you know what evidence there was against Megrahi?

Do you know the circumstances surrounding his extradition and trial?

Do you understand the political pressure there was to get some type of conviction?

Are you even interested?

Or would you rather just transform a complicated issue into a simplistic and ugly round of populist hand wringing?
Click to expand...

He was found guilty in a court of law. What part of that is hard for you to understand.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Terminally ill Lockerbie bomber released - CNN.com



Ok, I lean on the liberal side, but this is killing me. This guy killed 270 people as a terrorist and they are "showing him mercy," because he has a terminal illness!!!!!? That's karma bitch! He should have rotted and died in prison. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I lean liberal, that is for certain, but that does not mean I think people don't deserve the punishments they bring upon themselves. This man was not in prison for rehabilitation, he was in for punishment and this situation is just a part of the punishment.
 
Slainte said:
Do you know what evidence there was against Megrahi?

Do you know the circumstances surrounding his extradition and trial?

Do you understand the political pressure there was to get some type of conviction?

Are you even interested?
Click to expand...

Then please enlighten us about the evidence used to convict him seeing how you claim to know what happened.
 
jamesrage said:
Then please enlighten us about the evidence used to convict him seeing how you claim to know what happened.
Click to expand...

I posted this in an earlier thread:

I simply fail to see how anyone who has the followed the case in reasonable depth can not believe there is a "reasonable doubt" about Megrahi's guilt. The star witness for the prosecution was, according to the head of the prosecution, completely unreliable. Without him there was absolutely nothing concrete against Megrahi. On top of this a further important witness has admitted he lied at the trial, although what he lied about is unclear. Finally there is evidence that large parts of the intelligence community never even suspected Libya in the first place! In fact a very common view in Lockerbie itself was that it was a Palestinian/Iranian plot to avenge the Vincennes, which exploited a horrendous screw up by the CIA. Several experts in Scottish law, as well as UN observers, have raised massive questions over the trial and most people in Lockerbie itself remain utterly unconvinced.

When you view all this in the context of the relationship between the UK and Libya and the strong desire to, firstly, isolate him in the late 80's early 90's and then later reconcile with him after the Iraq war. There was a strong political desire to "drop" the Lockerbie issue and the only way it could be done was for Qaddafi to hand over the suspects, so he did. Once they were in British hands the only way to get closure on the whole issue was to get a conviction. I can not see how any judge, let alone 3, could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt without feeling some kind of pressure, even if indirect. So while there is no hard evidence, and if you thought critically for a second you would realise there is no way there could be, if you ask the simple questions: was a conviction politically convenient? Was there enough evidence to justify a conviction? Was the guy convicted? You get a pretty nasty picture forming!
Click to expand...

In regards to the star witness, a Maltese shop keeper called Tony Gauci. Gauci was the only man who provided a concrete link between Megrahi and Pan Am 103, he claimed to have sold Megrahi clothing which was found in the suitcase which carried the bomb. However it was later revealed that Gauci picked Megrahi out of a line-up only after he had seen a picture of him in a magazine and that he had been paid $2 million by the US to give evidence. To confound this at the trial he appeared indecisive and confused about what happened and in the words of the head of the prosecution was " a few apples short of a picnic".

To further this there is known to be a secret document relating to the trial which the UK government will not publish, it is believed to reveal that the detonator used on Pan Am 103 was made in Syria, not in East Germany by a company Megrahi had links too, this was essentally the other major piece of evidence against Megrahi, however even without this, having links to a company which builds detonators of the type used in Pan AM 103 is not proof of anything.

If anyone knows of important evidence I am omitting I hope they wil add it.
 
They should have made the plane he flew out on using the same technology they use for predator drones...

No need to explain any further.
 
Slainte said:
I posted this in an earlier thread:



In regards to the star witness, a Maltese shop keeper called Tony Gauci. Gauci was the only man who provided a concrete link between Megrahi and Pan Am 103, he claimed to have sold Megrahi clothing which was found in the suitcase which carried the bomb. However it was later revealed that Gauci picked Megrahi out of a line-up only after he had seen a picture of him in a magazine and that he had been paid $2 million by the US to give evidence. To confound this at the trial he appeared indecisive and confused about what happened and in the words of the head of the prosecution was " a few apples short of a picnic".

To further this there is known to be a secret document relating to the trial which the UK government will not publish, it is believed to reveal that the detonator used on Pan Am 103 was made in Syria, not in East Germany by a company Megrahi had links too, this was essentally the other major piece of evidence against Megrahi, however even without this, having links to a company which builds detonators of the type used in Pan AM 103 is not proof of anything.

If anyone knows of important evidence I am omitting I hope they wil add it.
Click to expand...

If you are going to claim stuff you should post credible sources.
 
Even rotting in prison is too good for that pieice of human fecal matter. I also am disgusted beyond belief over this piece of Scotish injustice!!
 
jamesrage said:
If you are going to claim stuff you should post credible sources.
Click to expand...

This was the finding of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, for your ease I am linking to a BBC article and not the entire document which is hundreds of pages long, however if you desire it is easy enough to trace to sources:

Here are some extracts from the grounds for appeal:

* A1. The court erred in finding that the date of the purchase of the clothes from the shop at Mary's House, 63 Tower Street, Sliema, Malta, was December 7 1988.

There was no proper basis on the evidence for the finding that the date of the purchase of the clothes was either November 23 or December 7 1988.

* A4. The court failed to advance adequate reasons for preferring Gauci's identification of the appellant by resemblance of a photo, at identification parade and in court, to earlier descriptions of the purchaser which did not match the appellant.

* A5. The court failed to deal with and resolve the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of Gauci regarding the date of the purchase and the identity of the purchaser.

* A6. The evidence of identification was not of such character, quality or strength to justify a finding that the appellant was the clothes buyer.

The court failed properly to take account of the significant body of evidence referred to above which pointed away from December 7 as the date of purchase.

* B1. The court misdirected itself as to the accuracy of the records from Frankfurt Airport from which it found that an inference could be drawn that an unaccompanied bag travelled on KM 180 from Luqa airport to Frankfurt and was there loaded on to PA103A.

* B4. The documents and other evidence from Frankfurt, properly construed, were not of sufficient strength, quality or character to enable the court to conclude that an unaccompanied bag from KM 180 was transferred to and loaded on to PA103A.

* B10. The court failed to take account of the defence submission that the fact that the primary suitcase was located at or near to the optimum position to achieve its destructive purpose gave rise to an inference that the device was ingested at Heathrow airport.

* B11. There exists significant evidence which was not heard at the trial. It demonstrates that at some time in the two hours before 12.35am on December 21 1988 a padlock had been forced on a secure door giving access to airside in Terminal 3 of Heathrow Airport, near to the area referred to in the trial as the "baggage build-up area".

Had this evidence been available at the trial it would have supported the body of evidence suggestive of the bomb having been infiltrated at Heathrow.

BBC NEWS | In Depth | Appeal grounds at-a-glance
 
Anima said:
I dsiagree. I think we've ade completely the rigt call on this one. He was a monster. We're not. Why should we stoop to his level by showing no compassion or mercy?

We as a society are BETTER than these idiots. Let's not think we should show them inhumanity because they have behaved inhumanely.
Click to expand...

Better?
I believe a more fitting word is stupid.

Scotland is showing compassion to someone show showed none to his victims.
And no, there is no 'we'
This decision had nothing to do with England, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is how devolution works remember.

This was Scotland's stupid decision
 
Last edited:
I don't imagine that you can win here, Slainte. Not because you're not correct, of course, but because there's a disgustingly pervasive mentality in this country that involves blind and irrational trust in any court system. O.J. Simpson's acquittal, of course, does not deter many from claiming that he's guilty nonetheless, but for some reason, legal conviction is treated entirely differently. There is certainly substantial impropriety involved if key prosecution witness Gauci was indeed paid a $2 million sum to testify against Megrahi, and I found this statement of a UN observer to be of significant interest:

Dr. Hans Koechler said that the dramatic shortcomings and errors in the conduct of the trial that have been brought to the attention of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) confirm his earlier assessment that the Lockerbie trial resulted in a “spectacular miscarriage of justice.” (BBC News, 14 March 2002) Dr. Koechler pointed to the following information that transpired in the media and that puts in doubt the very integrity of the judicial process in the Lockerbie case:

1. The credibility of a key forensic expert in the trial, Mr. Allen Feraday (UK), has been shattered. It was revealed that “in three separate cases men against whom Mr. Feraday gave evidence have now had their convictions overturned” (BBC, 19 August 2005). Mr. Feraday had told the Lockerbie court that a circuit board fragment found after the disaster was part of the detonator used in the bomb on board Pan Am flight 103. In the first case where Mr. Feraday’s credibility had been questioned the Lord Chief Justice had stated that Mr. Feraday should not be allowed to present himself an expert in electronics.

2. A retired Scottish police officer has signed a statement confirming that the evidence that found Al-Megrahi guilty was fabricated. The police chief, whose identity has not yet been revealed, testified “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005). The fragment was supposedly part of the timing device that triggered the bomb. The circumstances of its discovery – in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity – have been mysterious from the very beginning.

3. Much earlier, a forensic specialist of the American FBI, Tom Thurman, who was publicly credited with figuring out the fragment’s evidentiary importance, was later discredited as a forensic expert. A 1997 report by the US Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found “that in a number of cases other than Lockerbie, Thurman rewrote lab reports, making them more favorable to the prosecution. The report also recommended Thurman be reassigned to a non-scientific job because he lacked a background in science.” (American RadioWorks / Public Radio, March 2000)

4. The most recent revelation relates to a mix-up of forensic evidence recovered on the ground in Lockerbie with material used during a series of test explosions in the course of the investigation. In one case, a garment which was damaged in a test explosion was presented as if it was the original garment found on the ground (which was completely undamaged). This garment was supposedly placed in the suitcase containing the bomb. “It casts serious doubts over the prosecution case because certain items that should have been destroyed if they were in the case containing the bomb are now known to have survived the blast.” (The Observer, London, 9 October 2005)

All these facts – which are now before the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission – confirm the serious doubts about the Lockerbie proceedings originally raised by the UN-appointed observer, Dr. Hans Koechler. In his comprehensive reports on and evaluation of the Lockerbie trial (2001) and appeal (2002) as well as in his statement on the compensation deal made between the US, UK and Libya in 2003, Dr. Koechler had criticized the highly politicized circumstances in which the case was handled and drew the attention of the international public to the possible interference of intelligence services from more than one country.
Click to expand...

To summarize, regardless of whether or not he is guilty (and there seems to be insufficient evidence to convict him), it's not unreasonable to note that much of the key evidence submitted in the trial may have been fabricated, and it's therefore absurd to suggest that repetition of this unjust process would somehow aid Megrahi. As with the cases of Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal here in the U.S., there may have been substantial motivation to convict him due to pressure from political or ideological interests.
 
Agnapostate said:
To summarize, regardless of whether or not he is guilty (and there seems to be insufficient evidence to convict him), it's not unreasonable to note that much of the key evidence submitted in the trial may have been fabricated, and it's therefore absurd to suggest that repetition of this unjust process would somehow aid Megrahi. As with the cases of Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal here in the U.S., there may have been substantial motivation to convict him due to pressure from political or ideological interests.
Click to expand...
May is an hilarious word to use in an argument.
Yes, the evidence may have been fabricated, and 9/11 may have been an inside job, and you may actually be a female and not a male as you claim yourself to be.
But that's just 'may', you could say 'may' about pretty much anything, no matter how butt**** insane it is.

As far as the law goes in the Western society, if a person was convicted in court, he is guilty, and unless he's acquitted, he stays guilty.
We cannot, as a society, simply ignore the rule of law and allow criminals to be released simply because the justice system may be wrong.
If he was innocent, he would be acquitted.
He wasn't acquitted, there's no sense in portraying him as an innocent.

We should just acknowledge that on the 20th of August, 2009, the Scottish government has released a person that is guilty with the murdering of 270 innocent human beings.
This should serve as a lesson for the rest of the Western world as to what happens when a state becomes obsessed with freedoms and liberties, until it frees a monster that has committed an horrific crime above that nation's soil, in a show of mercy for the monster's health problems.
 
Apocalypse said:
If he was innocent, he would be acquitted.
He wasn't acquitted, there's no sense in portraying him as an innocent.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in fellating dysfunctional court systems. It's quite simple for many to claim that O.J. Simpson is a murderer despite the fact that he was acquitted in a jury trial; it's not anything but absurd for the same to claim that a non-jury trial that appears to have been tainted is somehow undeserving of any reproach.
 
Agnapostate said:
I'm not interested in fellating dysfunctional court systems. It's quite simple for many to claim that O.J. Simpson is a murderer despite the fact that he was acquitted in a jury trial; it's not anything but absurd for the same to claim that a non-jury trial that appears to have been tainted is somehow undeserving of any reproach.
Click to expand...
I don't care for hypocrisy blaming or whatever you're at it, the Lockerbie bomber is guilty by law and guilty by any kind of sense.
It is ridiculous to simply claim that he is innocent because the justice system is sometimes(rarely) wrong.
 
Apocalypse said:
I don't care for hypocrisy blaming or whatever you're at it, the Lockerbie bomber is guilty by law and guilty by any kind of sense.
Click to expand...

Blind trust in the law and bodies of government when it's clearly undeserved is among the most sickeningly irrational forms of appeasement to injustice. Considering the realities of advancements in forensic technology having revealed the wrongful convictions of numerous "guilty" persons, any reasonable analyst would be wary of pronouncements of ethical guilt based on ambiguous legal conviction, especially in this case.

Apocalypse said:
It is ridiculous to simply claim that he is innocent because the justice system is sometimes(rarely) wrong.
Click to expand...

It would be. That's probably why I did not claim that he was innocent, and instead claimed that there appeared to be insufficient sound evidence to legally convict him, and deficiencies present in his legal trial that prevented a respectable ruling on his innocence or guilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom